Sunday, July 28, 2013

Dear Reader: If you happen to member of either of the
following communities – Toy Dog, Type 1 (mangina)
or a Toy Dog Type 2 (white knight) –
you should not read the rest of this post.

No Toy Dogs need apply – Big Dogs only!

***

FULL TEXT: Berlin, July 7. – Dr. Albert Einstein, the famous
scientist, made an amazing discovery relative to America on his trip which he
recently explained to a sympathetic-looking Hollander as follows:

“The excessive enthusiasm for me in America appears to be
typically American. And if I grasp it correctly the reason is that the people
in America are as colossally bored, very much more than is the case with us.
After all, there is so little for them there!” he exclaimed.

Dr. Einstein said this with vibrant sympathy. He continued:

“New York, Boston, Chicago and other cities have their
theatres and concerts, but for the rest? There are cities with 1,000,000
inhabitants. Despite which what poverty, intellectual poverty! The people are,
therefore, glad when something is given them with which they can play and over
which they can enthuse. And that they do, then, with monstrous intensity.

“Above all things
there are the women who, as a literal fact, dominate the entire life in
America. The men take an interest in absolutely nothing at all. They work and
work, the like of which I have never seen anywhere yet. For the rest they are
the toy dogs of the women, who spend the money in a most unmeasurable, illimitable
way and wrap themselves in a fog of extravagance. They do everything which is
the vogue and now quite by chance they have thrown themselves on the Einstein
fashion.”

“You ask whether it makes a ludicrous impression on me to
observe the excitement of the crowd for my teaching and my theory, of which it,
after all, understandable nothing? I find it funny and at the same time
interesting to observe the game.”

“I believe quite positively that it is the mysteriousness of
what they cannot conceive which places them under a magic spell. One tells them
of something big which will influence all future life, of a theory which only a
small group, highly learned, can comprehend. Big names are mentioned of men who
made discoveries, of which the crowd grasps nothing. But it impresses them,
takes on color and the magic power of mystery, and thus one becomes
enthusiastic and excited.”

“My impressions of scientific life in America? Well, I met
with great interest several extraordinary meritorious professors, like Professor
Milliken. I unfortunately missed Professor Michelson in Chicago, but to compare
the general scientific life in America with Europe is nonsense.

[“Einstein Declares Women Rule Here – Scientist Says He
Found American Men the Toy Dogs of the Other Sex. - People Colossally Bored -
Showed Excessive Enthusiasm Over Him for Lack of Other Thinks, He Thinks.” The
New York Times (N.Y.), Jul. 8, 1921, Section (?), p. 9]

FULL TEXT: Amid the various writers who have favoured THE
NEW AGE with their views on the question of Female Suffrage, none have really traversed
my original contention, as contained in my first article. That contention was,
that occupying as they do a privileged position before the law – not only in
itself, but still more in its administration – as against men, women have no
just claim to the franchise. That the votaries of Female Suffrage feel this, is
proved by the fact that their most serious efforts at arguments turn upon the
iniquity of subjecting women to “man-made laws,” their staple policy throughout
their agitation being, by dint of lying assertions and insinuations,
ceaselessly repeated, to create the impression on the public mind that the
existing state of the law and its administration not only does not favour
women, but is actually unfair to “the sex.” Now, as I have pointed out, to
anyone in the least acquainted with the theory and practice of the English law,
there can be no doubt whatever that the latter, in theory and still more in
practice, is entirely and without any exception whatever, one-sided and partial
to women and against men.

The only correspondent of THE NEW AGE who has really touched
the point at issue at all, while admitting the substantial truth of my remarks,
confines himself to suggesting exaggeration on my part and observing that our
infamous anti-man marriage laws were unjust “not on one side only.” But I must
deny the charge of exaggeration, a denial that can be substantiated by
illustrative cases galore. As regards the marriage laws, I insist that the
unfairness is wholly and solely on one side. But I must here make an
explanation. There does exist on paper one slight concession of
fairness towards the husband. The divorce law, namely, ordains that an
adulterous wife, owing to the fact that by her adultery she can introduce into
the family, and compel her husband to support, a bastard child, can be divorced
by the husband on proof of adultery alone, whereas for a wife
to obtain divorce from her husband (in which case, of course, the above reason
does not obtain), it is necessary to prove cruelty in addition to adultery.
Now, believer as I am that marriage ought to be an absolutely free union, it is
certainly not my case to defend the existing marriage laws as a system. But I
do say that, given that system and our present property and family relations
generally, nothing can be more reasonable or more equitable as between the man
and the woman than this provision of the English law respecting divorce.

Yet when brought to book and challenged to give a concrete
instance of the unfairness of “man-made laws “ to woman aboutt which the woman’s
righter is perennially blathering at large, it is invariably this very innocent
and natural provision of the divorce law that is trotted out, it being the
solitary instance in which the law does not overtly favour the woman at the
expense of the man. But I have said that this provision exists on paper merely,
and so it does, since in practice it remains a dead letter. For the
discrimination in question is now practically abolished, anything which the
wife objects to – coming home late at night, going out to a party without
taking her with him, holding her hands when she attempts to scratch or bite him
– being adjudged technical cruelty by the husband within the meaning of the
law. Per contra, the Act of 1895 condones expressly the adultery of the wife,
providing she can successfully plead “neglect” (an elastic term) on the part of
the husband. So much for this solitary case in which the Feminist, to his
horror and indignation, finds that the law does not for once avowedly favour women
at the expense of men. But apart from this isolated example, the whole marriage
law is one tissue of favouritism to the woman and injustice to the man, as I
have already shown.

And yet we find in “advanced” journals tirades like the
following: “Any fool, any blackguard, any coward, is wise enough and worthy
enough to be allowed a legal and a holy license to torture and insult a woman.
Anything with the title of husband in his pocket may goad and stab and lash and
sear the soul of the slave we call a wife” (Clarion, July 17)
Unfortunately, the champion liar who can gush forth the mendacious, sentimental
slush, of which the foregoing is a sample, does not stand alone. His
performance is but part of an anti-man crusade of misrepresentation and
falsehood carefully organised and skilfully engineered, the object of which is,
and has been, to inflame public opinion against men in the interests of female
privilege and of female domination. Feminists well know that the most
grotesquely far-fetched cry anent the injustice of man to woman will meet with
a ready ear. They well know that they get here fond and foolish man on his soft
side. Looking at the matter impartially, it is quite evident that man’s
treatment of woman is the least vulnerable point in his moral record. Woman, as
such, he has always treated with comparative generosity. But it is, of course,
to the interests of the abettors of female domination to pretend the contrary.
Accordingly everything has been done to excite prejudice in favour of woman as
the innocent and guileless victim of man’s tyranny, and the maudlin Feminist
sentiment of the “brute” man has been carefully exploited to this end. The
result of two generations’ agitation in the above sense is seen in the existing
state of the law, civil and criminal, in which the “Woman’s Movement” has
succeeded in effecting the violation of every principle of rectitude towards
the male side of the sex-equation. The existing laws connected with marriage
which place the husband practically in the position of legal slavery as regards
the wife is typical of the whole.

That the present “Votes for Women” movement is only a phase
of the anti-man crusade which Feminism has been carrying on for nigh two
generations past with the aid of the Press, is shown, not only by the
persistent efforts to represent “ man-made laws “ as unjust to women, but by
the incidental remarks of Suffragette leaders in which the sex animus is shown,
no concealment being made of the intention to use the suffrage for rivetting on
man the chains of legalised female oppression. For example, Mrs. Pankhurst
recently represented one of the functions of emancipated “Womanhood” to be the
handing over of the luckless male to the Female blackmailer by raising the “age
of consent” above sixteen!! The allusion made at the same time to the
“daughters of the working class “ is a piece of demagogy too thin to deceive
anyone as to the venomous sex-spite animating this outrageous proposal.

Again, in the Daily News for July 30 a suffragette
objects to a woman being punished for murdering her child, protesting that the
father, who had had nothing to do with the crime, ought to have been in the
dock in her place!

In the present agitation we see merely the culmination of a
Feminist campaign organised with scarcely any attempt at concealment, as I have
said, on the basis of a sex-war. But this sex-war is at present one-sided, the
man’s case goes by default. There is no sex-conscious man’s party to be
appealed to and to engineer public opinion in favour of the claims of the most
elementary justice for him, as here is a sex-conscious woman’s party to further
any and every iniquitous claim of the female sex. So long as the present state
of things lasts, organised determination on the one side and indefinite gullibility
on the other, are likely to maintain the ascendancy of the Feminist cult and
increase the sphere of female privilege.

It has often been remarked that even if the suffrage were
granted, the enforcement of the laws decreed by a female majority would be
dependent on the goodwill of men. This observation we are accustomed to find
greeted by Feminist jeers. The jeers may be justified for the moment, but the
intrinsic truth of the observation remains none the less. So long, namely, as
the Woman’s Party can continue to bulldose men as they have done up to the
present, so long will they be able to make men obey and enforce their behests,
whether formulated directly through the suffrage or indirectly by hoodwinking
public opinion as they do now. But when once men get tired of this, when once
the reaction sets in and a sex-conscious Man’s Party forms itself, then Heaven
help the women!! The anti-man ranting sisterhood do not seem to realise what
the position of their sex would be if men took to refusing to act against their
“brothers.” They think it the most natural thing in the world for women to talk
and act in this strain as regards their “sisters.” The explanation, to my mind,
is simple. They instinctively feel that man is more than sex, that he
stands for humanity in the concrete, whereas woman stands, par excellence, for
sex and sex alone. As I have often pointed out before, common phraseology
recognises that while man has a sex woman is a sex. The hollowness of the sham
of the modern dogma of equality between the sexes is shown by the fact that the
assumption of inferiority is called into requisition without any hesitation
when there is anything to be gained by it for the cause of female privilege.
The dogma of equality is reserved for pleading for the franchise, for the
opening up of the professions, and similar occasions. According to the current
theory, while women are fully equal to men in capacity for government,
administration, etc., and hence, while justice demands that these spheres
should be accessible to them, they are so inferior to men in the capacity to
control their actions and to distinguish right from wrong, that it is not to be
thought of that they, poor weak women, should be treated with the same
impartiality or severity by the law as is dealt out to men. Women nowadays
“want it,” not “both ways” merely, but all ways. At least as good arguments may
be produced to prove that the apparent muscular inferiority of women to men is
not fundamental, as are adduced to prove that the apparent intellectual
inferiority is not fundamental. There are plenty of instances of extraordinary
bodily strength in women. And yet we never hear these arguments. Why? Because
Feminists have no interest, but quite the contrary, in perverting the truth on
this side, whereas on the other, their demands require that they shall prove
equality – the aim being to ensure for women all honourable, agreeable, and
lucrative occupations in life, while guarding them carefully from all rough and
disagreeable work and from all unpleasant responsibilities. Hence it suits
their book to admit the physical, while denying the mental, inferiority. My
constitutional objection to privileged classes extends also to a privileged
sex. Hence my (as some deem it, intemperate) zeal in exposing the hollow humbug
on which the practical demands of the “Woman’s Movement” rest.

Turning again to the present agitation, it is noteworthy how
the evidence as to the numerical strength of the Suffrage movement adduced by
its advocates is about on a level with the arguments advanced in support of the
general principle of Feminism. A stage army, the vanguard of which probably
amounts to some five hundred, which can on occasion, from all England, be
raised to ten thousand (among these, girlish youth and innocence being
particularly prominent), such is all that has yet been achieved, and such it is
that we are asked to regard as representing the public opinion of England.
However, one may suppose that the Feminists are so accustomed to their
statements otherwise being allowed to pass by default, that they have come to
regard the supineness and gullibility of public opinion in these matters as a
safe speculation. Hence, at the beginning of the twentieth century the figure
of British Womanhood rises up before us, reeking with privilege, and, in
alternate strophes, tearfully whimpering and threateningly shrieking that she
has not enough, that she wants more! Such, at least is the Womanhood of the
Feminist agitation. In concluding this controversy, I can only reaffirm my original
position unshaken, and that is, that whatever other arguments there may be for
or against “Votes for Women,” certain it is, under any ordinarily recognised
standard of fairness and equality, that so long as women enjoy those privileges
before the law at the expense of men which they now do, it is unjust that they
should be given facilities for increasing them by the concession of the
franchise.

Monday, July 15, 2013

FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 4): Buffalo, N.Y., July 20 – The frightful death of
Louisa Stormer, and the severe illness of five or six other children of
Tonawanda, has brought to light the fact that 14-year-old Ella Holdridge is a
murderess. Her frightful crime is the result of a morbid desire to see death
scenes enacted. She was attended every funeral that has occurred in the
neighborhood for several years past. Funerals have been infrequent hereabouts
lately. Ella, it seems, took upon herself the duty of supplying subjects. She
administered rat poison to several pupils of Father Baker’s institution at
Limestone Hill. They suffered frightfully while she stood by and coolly awaited
the coming of death.

The helpless little ones ran shrieking from her presence.
Medical aid was summoned and her lives were saved. She claimed to have been
given them hot water, and as no serious results followed no investigation was
made. The Stormer girl was her next victim. The dead child never spoke after
the dose had been givenher, and as the
physician called gave a certificate of death from summer complaint no suspicion
was attached to the Holdridge girl, who saw her die and was the most interested
spectator at the grave.

Only a day after Louisa Stormer was buried she fed the
children of Mrs. Wallace Eggleston, who left them in her charge, liberal
allowances of rat poison. Dr. Edmonds was called. He detected the evidences of
poison at once. Heroic measures were adopted and the little ones now hover
between life and death, little hope of their recovery being entertained. He
left the bedside of the Eggleston children one hour, and the next he was called
in to save the life of the 5-year-old child of Henry Garlock, who had been
poisoned. The child, too, had been playing with Ella Holdridge and told of
eating food prepared by her. Dr. Edmunds sent for the Holdridge girl and forced
her to confess that she not only poisoned the children at the institution,
the Egglestons and little Garlock, but actually murdered Louisa Stromer. She
described with great earnestness and tragic effect the horrible sufferings of
her victims and seemed to gloat over the death of Louisa Stormer who she said
“made the prettiest corpse ever put under New York soil.” The coroner is now
investigating the case. The girl is under police surveillance.

[“She Murdered For Fun. – The Morbid Passion of A Child
Leads Her to Crime.” The Philadelphia Record (Pa.), Jul. 21, 1892, p. 7]

***

EXCERPT (Article 2 of 4): The village of South Tonawanda
(N.Y.) was thrown into a state of excitement over a startling case of poisoning
that has just come to light. Ella Holdridge, a fourteen-year-old girl, is
charged with having given several of her playmates “rough on rats.” One child
died and three others are not expected to live. The little daughter of Mr. and
Mrs. Steiner was taken sick and died three hours later. It was then thought she
had cholera morbus. On the following Wednesday Mrs. Eggleston went to Buffalo,
leaving her little girls, Susie, aged ten, and Jennie, aged five, at home. Ella
Holdridge came over to play with the children, and while there coaxed the
children into the house and forced them to take the poison, which she had mixed
with chocolate. She told them it was good, and that her mamma used it in
coffee. The children were very soon taken ill, and Dr. Edmunds was sent for. He
said they had been poisoned. The Holdridge girl was sent for and questioned.
She finally confessed to having given them the poison.

NOTE: The original article discusses two separate juvenile
murder case (the other not being a “serial” case).

FULL TEXT (Article 3 of 4): Buffalo, N . Y .,
July 20.— Out at Father Baker’s institution at Limestone Hill there is a girl
of 14 years, Ella Holdridge, whose morbid passion for seeing death and funerals
has led her to kill one of her playmates and cause the serious illness of three
others by poison.

The Holdridges have lived in Tonawanda
several years, While in all other respects Ella has been like other children,
her parents and the neighbors have always noticed that a funeral or the
announcement of a death seemed to set her wild.

She grow to be a very familiar figure at the
burying ground, for almost as certainly as there was a funeral the child was
near the open grave.

Tonawanda is 10 miles from Buffalo, but it
might just as well be at the bottom of Lake Erie so far as the publicity of
news is concerned, and thus it is that Ella’s crime did not become known for
more than a week.

Her plan was to administer rat poison, which
she made as agreeable to take as possible by mixing it with cocoa. When the
children refused to take it willingly she threw them on their backs and forced
it down their throats, leaving them to die if they would, but watching their
suffering from a distance and gloating over it.

As far as can be learned this

Child
Borgia’s Work

began in earnest July 7. On that day Ella had
been playing with Louisa, the 7-year-old daughter of Herman Stormer. Shortly
after she left Louisa was taken violently ill. The weather was hot, just the
kind in which children’s complaints flourish, and the physician called
prescribed for summer complaint. None of his remedies eased her sufferings, and
alter two days of intense agony the little girl died.

She was buried on the 11th, and one of the
conspicuous figures at the Stormer home during the days intervening between
death and the funeral and at the open graveside was little Ella Holdridge,
solemn and quiet, but her eyes flashing with excitement, her cheeks burning and
her face full of mystery.

The doctor had given a certificate of death
from summer complaint, and no thought of murder or poison entered the mind of any one
until last Wednesday, when Mrs. Eggleston came to Buffalo on a shopping
expedition, leaving her two young daughters at home. She had been gone only a
few minutes when the Holdridge girl went to the house. The children were
playing around the doorstep.

Ella took them inside and told them she would
make them something nice. She
looked the door and made a pot of cocoa, into which she threw a generous
handful of rat poison.

One of the children didn’t like the taste,
the liquid was poured down her throat. Then Ella told them both they would be
all right soon, directing thorn not to tell any one.

That night both children were taken violently
ill and Dr. Edmonds was called. He at once suspected poison. Questioning the
little patients closely, he learned enough to nut him on the

Track
of the Child Poisoner.

Ever since then Dr. Edmonds has been
attending the children, and may save their lives, although the hot weather
tolls against them.

While he was working over the Eggleston
children it was discovered that the 5-year-old son of Mr. Garlock had been
poisoned.

A panic seized the neighborhood. Every child
was catechised to learn if it had eaten or drank anything given them by Ella
Holdridge.

By hard work the physicians who attended the
Garlock boy saved his life, although he is yet very ill. In the mean-time, Dr.
Harris, who attended the girl who died, and Dr. Edmonds had compared notes, and
Justice of the Peace Rogers and Coroner Hardleben were notified and began an
investigation.

The Holdridge child was sent for and
questioned. At first she denied having given any of the children anything to
eat or drink, but when told that she had been seen making the cocoa, and that
it was known she had poisoned them,. she very naively and with wide-open eyes
said:

“Dear me, is that so?”

Then she made a full confession. She told how
she had made the cocoa with the poison in it, and how she had forced it down
the throats of the little Eggleston children because she wanted to go to a
funeral and thought they would look so nice dead. When the death of little
Louise Stermer was brought up she frankly said:

“Yes, she’s dead. Poor Louisa! But she looked
awful pretty, and her funeral was awful nice.”

Ella had given her the poison in a drink of
water, she said, She told her tale in the most matter-of-fact way, without
seeming to realize the enormity of her act.

At the conclusion of the confession Justice
Rogers sent her to Father Baker’s for safe-keeping until the coroner’s
investigation is finished.

It has been learned that after she had given
the poison to the little Stermer girl Ella went home, and her mother, noticing
that she seemed to be laboring under suppressed excitement, asked her what the
trouble was,

“I don’t know,” she replied, “but I guess

Little
Louisa is Goin’ to Die.

‘cause she’s pretty sick. The doctor is
there.”

From then until the child died Ella made
frequent trips to the Stermer house, tiptoed her way to a window and peeked in.
Every time she ran back to her mother and cried almost joyously.

“I guess she’s most dead now.”

Finally little Louisa died. The first intimation
Mrs. Holdridge had of it was when Ella ran into the house clapping her hands
and dancing up and down, saying gleefully;

“I guess she’s dead now, ‘cause they’re all
in there crying, and there’s a man there with a box. She’s dead, she’s dead; I know it.”

And she danced outinto the street.
Mrs. Holdridge is almost prostrated with grief.

“I questioned Ella,” she said, “but allI
can get from her is that she thought they would look nice dead and she wanted
to go to the funerals.”

“She seemed always to have a perfect mania
for deaths and funerals. Every time any one died she learned of it in some way
and would dance up and down with joy, clapping her bands and saying: “He’s
dead! He’s dead!”

“Then if she could she would slip away and go
to the cemetery to the funeral.”

“Several times when she has returned home
after an absence, and I questioned her she would tell me enough to lead me to
believe she had been following a funeral.

“So deeply was she interested in the death of
little Louisa that she slipped away once or twice the evening before she died
and went to the house. This she told me just before they took her to Father
Baker’s.”

The girl was seen in the institution today
and questioned, but could give no explanation of her poisoning, other than that
“they looked nice dead.” When asked how she knew the poison would kill the
children, she said:

“If it killed rats and mice it would kill
children.”

Her mind seems perfectly free from evil, and
she said, very quietly and earnestly:

“LittleLouisa looked very pretty dead.”

She says she got the poison “in the house.”

[“They Looked Nice Dead. – Little Girl Near
Buffalo Liked Funerals. - For This Reason She Gave Seven-Year-Old
Louisa Stermer Poison. - She Was Not Suspected Till Many Children Were at
Death’s Door.” The Boston Daily Globe (Ma.), Jul. 20, 1892, p. 4]

***

FULL
TEXT (Article 4 of 4): Buffalo, N. Y., July 20. – Out at Father Baker’s
institution, at Limestone Hill, there is a girl of 14 years, Ella Holdridge,
whose morbid passion for seeing death and funerals has led her to kill one of
her playmates and cause the serious illness three others by poison.

Uninvited,
Ella went to all the funerals, and always crowded well up toward the grave,
where she stood looking down the opening. Her plan with children was to give
them rat poison, first mixing it with cocoa, and when they refused to take it
willingly threw them on their backs and forced it down their throats, leaving
them die if they would and gloatingly
watch their sufferings. She began her Borgia work July 7 with Louisa, the
daughter of Mr. Herman Stermer. The illness was attributed to summer complaint
and treated accordingly. Death followed two days later, and conspicuous figure
at the house, funeral and the open grave side was little Ella Holdridge, solemn
and quiet, her eyes flashing with excitement and her cheeks rosy red.

Last
Wednesday, when Mrs. Eggleston visited Buffalo, leaving her two young daughters
at home, Alla [sic] visited the house and told the children she would make them
something nice. She made a pot of cocoa, into which she threw a generous
handful of rat poison. One of the children did not like the taste. She was
pushed on to the sofa. The liquid was poured down her throat. Then Ella told
them both they would be all right soon, directing them not to tell any one.
These children are not yet out of danger. The five-year-old son of George
Garlock was next poisoned, and panic seized the neighborhood. Every child was
catechised to learn if they had eaten drank any thing given by Ella. Ella has
confessed everything, and said in the case of the little Eggleston children
that she wanted to go their funeral because they would look so nice dead. When
the death of the little Stermer girl was brought up, Ella said. “Yes, she
looked awfully pretty in a coffin.”

When
the Stermer girl was sick Ella was asked by her mother what the trouble was,
the reply was given, “I think she is going to Heaven.” From then until the
child died Ella made frequent trips to the Stermer house, tiptoeing to the
window and peeping in.

Every
time she ran back to her mother and, cried, almost joyously: “I guess she’s
most dead now.” Finally little Louisa died. The first intimation Mrs. Holdridge
had of it was when Ella ran into the house clapping her hands and dancing up an
down saying, gleefully:

“I
guess she’s dead now, ‘cause they’re all in there crying and there’s a man
there with a box. She’s dead, she’s dead, I knew it!” and she danced off out
into the street. When Ella was asked hew she knew the poison would kill the
children, she said: “If it killed rats and mice it would kill children.”

[“Young Borgia. - She Had a Morbid Desire to Attend
Funerals. - To Gratify Her Whim She Poisons Her Playmates. - She Feeds Them on
Rough on Rats and When One of Them Resisted She Rammed the Deadly Stuff Down
Her Throat - Horrible Crime.” Daily Public Ledger (Maysville, Ky.), Jul. 20,
1892, p. 3]

– Hubby, buys a new house and while out of town his wife
secretly divorces him and puts their children in temporary care while she goes
off on honeymoon. The father is arrested for kidnapping when he goes to get his
kids from temporary location (wife sill on honeymoon).

Thursday, July 11, 2013

EPISODE DESCRIPTION: Tonight we have a very special and
urgent radio show response to the events currently unfolding in Canada
regarding the massive media coverage of Men’s Rights Edmonton’s “Don’t Be That
Girl” campaign. Members of the group will be joining us to discuss the
deluge of attention coming from the press and angry feminists across the
country. We invite ALL interested parties especially any feminists who
want to weigh in. This is an opportunity to have an open debate with
those who oppose Men’s Rights Edmonton’s actions and we look forward to
their participation.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 3): Shanghai,
Feb. 10. – The activities of a female "Jack the Ripper" are baffling
the police in the foreign settlement at Shanghai. Two child murders have been
reported in the past two days. On Saturday afternoon a Japanese girl seven
months old was stabbed an the neck and strangled, and last night the water
police picked up a Chinese girl in the harbour, who had been strangled in
similar manner.

The murder of the Japanese baby
occurred in an upstairs room at its home, and the police are searching for a
pretty Chinese girl with bobbed-hair, believed to be a cabaret dancer, who was
seen by the mother of the murdered child to leave the premises shortly after
the tragedy. The absence of any apparent motive for the crimes intensifies the
mystery surrounding them. The entire staff of the Japanese Consulates is
assisting the, municipal police in their endeavour to trace the murderess.

The father of the first victim is a cashier
at the Yokohama Specie Bank at Kajiwara.

FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 3): Shanghai,
Tuesday. – The
Japanese, consular police, in conjunction with the International settlement
police, have arrested the supposedly female “Jack the Ripper,” in connection with two child murders, which have been
committed within two days.

She is a Japanese dancing girl, employed at
a local cabaret. It is believed that she is insane.

On Saturday, afternoon a Japanese girl,
seven months old was stabbed in the neck and strangled.

On Sunday night, the water police picked up
a Chinese girl in the harbour strangled in a similar manner.

The Japanese crime occurred in the child's home upstairs. The police began the search for a pretty,
bobbed-haired Japanese girl, believed to be a cabaret dancer. She was seen by the mother of the murdered child when
leaving the premises.

The absence
of an apparent motive intensified the mystery. The entire force of the Japanese consular police
assisted the
municipal police intracking the murderer.

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Throughout history unspeakably cruel crimes have been
committed by violent women against women and girls. But the heavily-funded 600+
Women’s Studies departments in United State universities and the multi-billion
dollar domestic violence industry seem to want to pretend female victims of
violent women do not exist.

The reason for this treatment of female victims of violent
women is that detailed case reports of atrociously cruel and gratuitous murders
and tortures of women committed women would, if they were given the attention
they deserve, would undermine the entire ideology that justifies a biased,
misandric, approach to dealing with social problems

Thus, from the perspective of the domestic violence
movement, female victims are, in a very real sense treated as second-class
victims, whose stories need to be kept under the rug.

On June 22, 2013 a website called Fem It Up! Put out the
following false statement in reference to The
Unknown History of MISANDRY.

“Here’s a whole website devoted to exposing the history of
“misandry” by telling the sordid tales of female serial killers who targeted
men, like Vera Renczi and Viktoria Foedi Rieger. Don’t think the irony is lost
on me that I am using a paranoid Men’s Rights site to make my case.”

Apparently the author did not spend much time working on her
psychiatric diagnosis of “paranoia,” since she failed to notice that the
website is not devoted primarily to female serial killers, but also contains extensive
historical sources on chivalry justice, racketeering (Heart Balm Racket, Badger
Game, Alimony Racket, Allotment Annies, etc.), Revenge-Motivated Maternal
Filicide, the early history of the Men’s Rights Movement (1910s-1920s), and
most notably, violence by women against woman, as exemplified in “Female Serial Killers
Who Liked to Murder Women” and “The Forgotten Serial Killers” about child care
providers who murdered children (of both sexes, mind you).

The history of Female Serial Killers is, nevertheless, an important topic on The Unknown
History of MISANDRY, it must be said..

Our research has identified 700 cases, the vast
majority of them unknown to experts.

By the way, the majority of victims of
female serial killers have been, in the aggregate, women and children.

FULL
TEXT: Miss Edith L. Ransom, a twenty-three-year-old Richmond, Va., beauty filed
papers in a suit in Supreme Court for alleged breach of promise against John B.
Woodward, an executive and part owner of a Chicago newspaper. He is a widower, about
sixty years old, and while in New York lives at the Dearborn Apartments in West
55th Street, Miss Ransom lives nearby in the Hotel. No. 147 West 55th Street.

In
her complaint filed by her counsel, Thomas J. Stapleton of No 305 Broadway,
Miss Ransom alleges that Woodward asked her to be his wife while they were a
dinner in the Hotel Majestic, on June 20, 1920, and that he renewed this
promise in October of the same year while the were at a sanitarium in Summit,
N. J. Now, she avers, that recently he withdrew his promises to marry and
$100,000 damages.

Woodward
was served with a summons in the suit in his offices in the Times Building on
Wednesday

In a
letter to her lawyer, included in the complaint, Miss Ransom writes:

“After
several quarrels Mr. Woodward told me that he did not intend to marry me as he
had discovered that I had a very jealous nature, and that I got on his nerves
at times when I became hysterical after his quarreling with me.

“Due
to the disappointment and heartache and worry over the compromising position in
which I have been placed I fell seriously ill last summer in the Edgewater
Beach Hotel and can secure proof from people in Chicago that Mr. Woodward
introduced me to his friends and paid all my expenses while in Chicago at his
fiancee.”

Among
various letters submitted by tin plaintiff in her complaint is on the
letterhead of a Chicago newspaper, saying in part:

“Dear
Edith: You have great versatility in letter writing. In almost every letter you
write you show it. Sunday you pictured me as a your big wonderful man. Tuesday
I was a shrimp, not it to continue as your devoted pal, that on my return to
New YorkI was not to speak to you Wednesday
I was to prepare for the Wedding March and on Thursday I was a cold-hearted
villain who had forsaken his Princess and was rushing widows and vamps. Your
letters are always interesting and I enjoy them immensely.”

Affidavits
are submitted to Mrs. Margaret Ott, superintendent, and nurse, at the Esther
[?] Erbach Dr. Reinie’s sanitarium, Summitt, N. J., declaring that Woodward and
Miss Ransom spent ten days in adjoining rooms of the sanitarium and that she
held Miss Ransom out as his fiancée and it was understood they were to be
married next December.”

Miss
Ransom is an orphan, her parents having died when she was an infant. She was
reared in the .Masonic Home in Richmond, Va. Dining the war she was secretary
toGeorge Creel, Director of the Bureau
of Public Information. It was while she was Mr. Creel’s secretary that she
first met Mr. Woodward.

[“‘About
60’ Asks 23-Year Beauty To Be His Bride; And So Miss Edith L. Ransom Sues John
B. Woodward for $100,000 for Heart Balm.” The evening world (N.Y.), Aug. 4,
1922, p. 3]